martes, 29 de junio de 2010

I remember that when Windows Vista was about to be launched, many users could barely wait to see the "pretty" visual effects it would come with.

Those effects have a name: Aero. Aero, short for "Authentic, Energetic, Reflective, and Open," is the graphical user interface that replaced old Luna (aka. Windows XP theme). Aero is the responsible of all the eye candy Windows Vista and Seven boast of.

However, many who bought Windows Vista Home Basic were disappointed: Aero was not part of that Windows edition!

By then, Linux distros had made their move: First Beryl, then Compiz and after that came Compiz Fusion

Then, Vista's twin, Seven, promised more eye candy to Windows users...and also disappointed them more, for Windows 7 Starter did not bring Aero either and Windows Seven Home Basic was accompanied by a crippled Aero!

In contrast, KDE 4 brought more eye candy to Linux with Kwin...

Right now, many Windows users, after watching the visual effects Linux is capable of, seem to disdain the idea of dazzling their eyes with screen magic.

I even hear some Windows users (sore losers?) say "Who wants eye candy anyway? A computer is not a toy...it's for work! Visual effects get boring after a while!"

lunes, 28 de junio de 2010

That seems to be the motto of the anti-Ubuntu attitude among (several? some? many?) Linux users. Why is there so much hatred against a Linux distro? Well, Ubuntu is not just "a" Linux distro: it happens to be the most popular Linux flavor, too.

Why do Linux users treat Ubuntu supporters so harshly? I want to go over some of their reasons and will add my personal position, too.

Reason 1: Ubuntu is popular while other distros are not.So, the idea is that Linux remains in the shadows forever, right? If Ubuntu is popular, good for them! That means more Linux users, or not? Is it envy what I smell there?

Reason 2: Ubuntu is too easy.OK, so being easy to use is a sin in the world of Linux. If so, why are so many distros now relying on graphical installers and simpler package managers? Isn't it to simplify those processes? Mandriva has an excellent control center, surely designed to make things easier to Mandriva users. Excuse me for saying it, but when I decided to migrate to Linux, I precisely picked SimplyMepis for its friendly use. I, as most--if not all--Windows users, wanted the OS change to be as less traumatizing as possible. Most users appreciate simplicity when migrating, I'd say.

Reason 3: Ubuntu users are illiterate about computers. That may be generally true, but I don't know how to compile a kernel myself. I will eventually try it, though...but I'm pretty sure I'll end up with a Kernel Panic. I am another ignoramus that deserves no place in the highly technical Linux community, I guess. Learning is a process...Windows does not teach us; most of us start learning after meeting Tux. Blaming lack of computer literacy on Ubuntu is simply unfair.

Reason 4: Ubuntu is the best Linux distro.Here I have to disagree. Ubuntu is indeed a great distro, but not the best. Actually, I don't know the name of "the best" Linux distro. Linux is a tool like many others. Which is the best hammer? The one made with the best quality? But that one might be the most expensive, too. Thus, it won't be the best for my pocket. Also, purpose often determines our perception of value. If I want to use a hammer as part of a sculpture, the quality of such hammer may be totally unimportant or even work against it, for I might be reluctant to use--and lose--an expensive, high-quality hammer. I like to believe that people share a degree of affinity with their Linux distros. Fedora people are not better than Mint people and Mepis people are not more valuable than Mandriva people. Likewise, Ubuntu people are not the best (nor the worst).

Reason 5: Ubuntu limits the scope of Linux.Advocates of other Linux distros often claim that Ubuntu indirectly presents itself as the only Linux. I find this as a fair complaint. I've heard that some potential migrants, after trying Ubuntu, ended up disliking it and thought of going back to Windows because they had the image that Linux was Ubuntu. Nobody told them that other distros may have pleased them better. Again, it's as if Ubuntu developers thought "if it doesn't work in Ubuntu, it certainly won't work in other Linux distros." This is a false assumption. Again, in the varied world of Linux some distros handle hardware better, others obtain higher marks in stability and the appeal of others is their functionality in prehistoric computers (yes! that IS an issue for some people, you know? Not everyone has access to high-end equipments!)

Before ending, let me say that I myself dislike Ubuntu and Canonical. However, disliking is not the same as hating. I won't use Ubuntu myself, but I will be happy if someone picks Ubuntu to migrate from proprietary software.

If Ubuntu developers educated their community a bit more and let the world know that Ubuntu is not the only Linux, many of their current Linux "enemies" might be more supportive of this great distro, too.

Do Linux users need an antivirus?Opinions tend to be divided on this issue, but some Linux users say that having and running an antivirus may be handy in the case Linux users have to send a file that happens to be infected.

At this point, some Linux users may say "Hey, viruses don't affect me. Why should I care what happens to someone using Windows? It's their viruses; it's their problem."

True. Most viruses--not all--target Windows. We Linux users are safer. For most Windows users, especially if they rely on IE, going online is the equivalent of taking a surfboard to cross a river full of crocodiles, sharks, and piranha. Those threats are for Linux as dangerous as goldfish--careful, though...goldfish may bite! ;)

Let's see, an infected Windows computer sends a virus-infested file to a Linux user. The terrible virus Sharkattack.exe will become Goldfish.useless in Linux. However, if the Linux user resends the file to a different Windows user, Goldfish.useless will morph again into Sharkattack.exe and cause havoc at the new shores it reached.

Sorry for the Windows user! Shame on him/her for not having an updated Shark killer, I mean, antivirus (I don't want to get in trouble with Save the Shark activists.) The virus did not affect Linux anyway, so Linux users shouldn't care what happens if their files are infected with viruses for Windows.

That attitude makes me think of what other bloggers call The Ku-Tux-Klan: only Linux counts and those who are not part of the movement deserve to die in the hands of their viruses and malware.

However, that is not what I have learned from the sense of community in Linux. Maybe I was lucky to pick a distro with a nice, supportive community. Maybe I am still too naive. Maybe I still have present my days as a Windows user and all the suffering I underwent. Whatever the reason is, I feel Linux, as a community, must not be a closed, elitist one. I don't want to be part of the Ku-Tux-Klan. Linux helped me; I want to help others through Linux. If they migrate or not, it is their choice and if they don't, that does not grant me the right to send them viruses.

No. I'm not helping the enemy because Windows users are not my enemy. I'm not patronizing Windows, either. Let's think again. What will the Windows user think?

"My good Linux-loving friend sent me a virus. Of course, since viruses do not affect Linux because .exe files are useless in Linux, he/she does not have an antivirus, so chances are my friend didn't even know there was a virus hidden in the file. Poor me! Shame on me an on Windows! Oh, now I have to see how I save what was left of my computer or how I stop my info to be leaked. Mental note: get Linux for next time."

You will probably agree that such scenario is far from what an average Windows user will think, right? That simply won't happen. Not even in Tux's wildest dreams!

So, what will Windows users think?

"My Linux-loving friend is so selfish. Since he/she is safe from viruses, he/she does not care about those of us who ARE affected by viruses!"

Still not quite. His/her thoughts will be most likely like this...

"Damn! Linux is not so good because my friend who runs Linux sent me a virus that thrashed my drive! Damn Linux; it's worse than Windows: my Windows stops infected mails at least!!"

Let's face it: if we do nothing to help fight viruses, we are not helping Tux either. Besides, we all are part of the same community of computer users. Closing up the gates of our happy castle as Poe's Prince Prosper did will certainly cause the Red Death sneak into our dwelling and kill us.

jueves, 24 de junio de 2010

Why should someone migrate to Linux? Many people wonder the same and many others have already answered the question from all possible angles under the sun. Still, Linux advocates sometimes get frustrated because a great deal of users are undecided or prefer to ignore all the advantages of a migration and, bearing all the flaws of their current OS, stick with it stoically, very much like this:

A: With Linux you can literally design your own desktop!B: I envy you so much...I am tired of the limitations my OS comes with! A: Then, why don't you switch to Linux?B: Because learning a whole new system is too troublesome.A: It isn't so hard! You'll get used to it in no time.B: I don't know...I don't have much time.A: But aren't you tired of system failures and slow performance?B: I'm fed up with all that, you bet! Blame it all on the viruses!A: Then...?B: What can I do? That's how life is! A: It is not like that. Did you know that Linux is safer and with it, you don't even need an antivirus?B: Really? Wow! That's REALLY cool! By the way, you just reminded me I gotta download my antivirus updates! Gosh, I'm three days behind; it'll take a while! Better do it right now...see ya!A: ???!!!----

I can only say that since I run Linux, I am able to sit down and work on my computer with complete peace of mind. Today I had to print a document on my way to work, so I used a computer from a shop. As soon as I introduced my USB drive, a virus clung onto it. When I reached my office, I turned on my little netbook and in less than a minute, I got rid of the pest, whose name was "NICE." Right, VERY nice! A couple of hours later, an ex-classmate visited me. He told me about several useful software tools--for windows--and wanted to show me his accomplishments with them. Not to my surprise, his USB memory was infected with the infamous virus RECYCLER (which I used to fear a lot). I deleted the pest from my friend's USB device and that was the only explanation he needed to get interested in Linux. He is indeed a clever guy...

Again, that's probably what I value the most of Linux: it lets me relax and fear nothing whenever I insert an infected device into my computer's USB ports. Linux even gives me the chance to do some community service by cleaning up viruses that could cause a terrible moment to my friends or colleagues. It feels good to help people, you know?

lunes, 21 de junio de 2010

A caracteristic of GNU/Linux that calls my attention is, without a doubt, the varied philosophic views that Linux generates, especially compared to the two proprietary operating systems: Windows and MacOS X.

Windows has presented its own image as that of a simple and effective OS...

MacOS X has presented its own image as that of an artistic, fun and much safer OS than Windows...

Linux, on the other hand, has tried--maybe with little success--to present itself as the alternative to the proprietary operating systems...

However, in the case of Linux, its image does not end there. Its communities, as varied as the different distributions that they support and develop, have seen in Linux a lot more than a simple operating system. In fact, they have built around Torvalds' kernel and the GNU applications collected by Stallman a whole system of values and creeds that includes politics, cultural/national identity, pop culture, and even religion. I've never heard of a Christian edition of Windows, a Muslim version of MacOS, or the other way around. It'd be fun, I guess! So many levels of identification have been possible in Linux thanks to the freedom it provides to adapt and alter the OS to the user's content.

Let's see some examples of little known, but highly customized Linux distributions:

A- Geographic/National Identity:

1. Asianux: a distribution made by Asian countries, among them China and Japan2. BRlix: a Brazilian distribution3. Càtix: a distribution in Catalan4. Nepalinux: The Nepalese Linux5. Pardus: the Linux distribution from Turkey for Turkey and the worldB. Political Stand:Estrella Roja: A distribution made in Argentina with a Marxist flavor impossible to mistake

C- Pop CultureMangaka: an Ubuntu-derivated distro for those who love Japanese manga and anime (Yes, there's a specific Linux for that!)

D- Religion1- Sabily (known before as Ubuntu Muslim Edition): Ubuntu with the Koran and prayer schedules included, among others.2- Ubuntu CE (Christian Edition): Ubuntu with a Bible and other Christian tools included.

Of course, someone might say that those customized versions, especially the religious ones, are an attempt to attract a specific market. Personally, I doubt the veracity of such idea. If Linux as a whole represents 1% of the world market, how much would someone gain dividing that 1% by the Christian population or the "otakus"? I don't think such strategy would make anybody a millionaire! Definitively, all those little-known distros are more the result of personal identification than of money hunger.

Pardus is one of my favorite ones. I'd like to try as well all those other distros to taste a little of their individual flavor. I'm sure I'd learn something new from them!

viernes, 18 de junio de 2010

Linux is a community. Whoever hears of GNU/Linux has heard that. One big difference between Linux and Windows is the sense of identity that Linux creates. Some Linux users view GNU/Linux as a political movement, others as an economic one, and others as a personal one, which is fine. However, as in all communities, there are individuals that instead of contributing, work against the group and tend to turn outsiders against the good members of the group. Here are a few types of such Linux users I've come to identify:1- The Linux-Supremacy pusher:This type will die before acknowledging advantages of other Operating Systems. For him/her, Linux is the only OS worthy of existing and this type's only reason to live is destroying Windows. The problem with this Linux fan is that he/she offends and belittles Windows users, which turns many of them against Linux before even trying it. 2. The anti-capitalist freak:

For this Linux user, software is merely a political stand and nothing else counts. Whoever uses privative software is a servant of the evil machinery that enslaves the working class. The main problem of this type is his/her failure to recognize that most computer users don't view computing as a political activity; for them a computer is just a a tool for work or leisure as a hammer or a tennis racket would be. Thus, most people will view this type of Linux fan as a victim of an imaginary conspiracy and won't take his/her ideas seriously, even if they are true.

3. The Give-me-freebies Linux user:This Linux user scoffs at those who use MacOSX or Windows. Whoever pays for an Operating System is a sucker and a total loser. This type loves the word "free"; not as in "freedom" but as in "free beer." They won't give a penny or lift a finger to support developers, either. With that attitude, they contribute more to the death of free software than even Microsoft. 4. The Selfish Linux user:This user loves the feeling of being able to rescue systems, cleaning viruses, and doing things that the average Windows user wouldn't even imagine possible. However, instead of sharing this valuable knowledge, he/she uses Linux as a tool to acquire status, so sharing or teaching is out of the question. As in the comic strip above, that attitude contradicts totally the spirit of Free Software.

5. The MY-DISTRO Troll This type is even more dangerous than the Linux-Supremacy Pusher. This one not only insults Windows and Mac users, but also all other Linux distros as well. For him/her, THE Linux is only his/her distribution and all others are pure junk. This troll fails to understand that a Windows or Mac user is just seeing Linux against Linux. Who would like to step into a group in which the same members bite and kill themselves? Microsoft is simply delighted with this troll's job.

6. The Ashamed Linux user:This type is the opposite of the MY DISTRO one. He or she came into the Linux world because of lack of monetary resources. He/she views Free Software with embarrassment and often feels belittled when Windows users or Mac users show the capabilities of their OS. Basically, his/her attitude is like "I'm sorry I use Linux...if that causes you any inconvenience, please forgive me." He/she indirectly sends the message that Free Software is inferior than privative software, which certainly is NOT true. Free software is great and is nothing to be ashamed of. With GNU/Linux, individuals have the freedom to go anywhere they want: It's your computer, it's your destination!

jueves, 17 de junio de 2010

Apple is well-known for the beauty of their products and its innovations. Their latest child, born in a climate of generalized expectation, is the ipad. Many waited for it impatiently while others kept mumbling and grumbling...asking for the anti-apple trolls to start their destruction of the new gadget.

It started already. They began scoffing at Steve Jobs because ipads were not flash-compatible. "How are people supposed to surf the web without flash when most of the websites simply use it? Jobs blew it!", they said with a fiendish grin.

Then, the second blow came: ipads block Google ads. "Apple is cornering itself more and more. Apple users will be more isolated than they are now...like the bunch of aristocratic idiots they are!" said the trolls showing their filed teeth that resembled stalagmites and stalactites in front of a foul-smelling cave.

However, the launching of the ipad and tablet computers has posed a new concern: what will happen to the good ol' desktop PC? Are we seeing the extinction of the desktop?

Some people say it is inevitable. The big PC will fall prey of the smaller, velociraptor-like devices.

Others disagree. For one part, ipads are too expensive and tablet computers do not welcome Windows as laptops and desktops do (netbooks are not included here because they run a crippled version of windows 7, not the actual system.) According to them, until tablet computers accept Redmond children and their prices go down, the Desktop Rex will keep its reign.

There's another consideration, though. Tablet computers can run Linux with (almost) no problem. If Linux enters the tablet computer scene, things may get complicated to the Desktop PC. The biggest issue Linux would have to solve is compatibility with touch screen technologies. As far as I understand, Ubuntu is taking the lead in this path.

OLPC (One Laptop per Child) announced that their latest product, the XO-3, will run Linux. So, we may actually have to say farewell to our longtime friend and our grandchildren might not get to know it.

martes, 15 de junio de 2010

I've been discussing about using one's OS with a critical eye always fixed on it. Mostly, I've referred to Windows users who, thinking that their system is the best, let all kinds of threats compromise their security. Now it's turn to say the same about Linux users.

It is a fact that Linux is much less a target of viruses and malware, but that does not mean Linux is an impenetrable fortress. There are many Linux users out there who feel they own a totally invulnerable super-system and simply forget the First Commandment when going online:"Thou Shalt not trust any site or any download easily "

As I said it before, many Linux users, with their chests full of pride and their heads empty of critical thinking, forget to take full charge of their beloved penguin's security, especially when they engage in risky Internet behaviors such as chatting or P2P downloading.

Simple logics dictates that any Internet interaction between 2 or more computers that involves sharing files may be risky enough. Still, cases of Linux users who, totally convinced that Linux security is unbeatable, leave simple root passwords and get their systems hijacked have occurred.

"But that is another PICNIC example. Clearly, those users were to blame, not Linux", some may say. That's true. However, it was confirmed that a new Linux Trojan going by a phony "Unreal IRC" identity has infected lots of Linux machines already. It appears someone replaced the actual "Unreal IRC" download with a powerful Trojan in the mirrors of that Internet Chat Relay platform.

What does the Trojan do? Apart from granting a stranger out there all access privileges and control of your computer, nothing much. Even the Unreal IRC Webmasters were baffled. They were so sure of Linux Security that they didn't even check periodically the integrity of the download at the mirrors. The news is here.

If you use Linux and like IRC, then you must make sure you install files from your official repositories. If Unreal IRC is not there, consider seriously not installing it from anywhere else. Fortunately, MEPIS does not offer it.

Again and again, any user must take an active role in his/her computer's protection. Remember Uncle Ben's wise words, also cited by my Console any time I attempt to fiddle with my system from the root: "With great power comes great responsibility."

lunes, 14 de junio de 2010

1.Windows is the best OS because it is the most popular.This is an AD POPULUM Fallacy. First, being popular and being the best are not directly related. Besides, Windows is more widespread because it actively silences other systems by making deals with manufacturers so that they don't include other Operating Systems in the new computers.

2.Windows is the oldest OS, so it is the best.This is a disguised POST HOC fallacy. Becoming old does not cause being better. Windows is old, but Windows versions differ among themselves and sometimes they barely resemble each other. Actually, each Windows version reaches approximately a 5-year life. Some people may claim now that Windows developers are highly experienced, but the experience or critical eye of an individual and of a company's team cannot be compared to that of many developers around the world. Linux, by being Open Source, lets any individual use his/her computer talent to detect and correct problems while Microsoft's products are the result of a reduced group of individuals in comparison.

3.Windows is better because it has the best compatibility.Again, the problem here is that even though Windows has the best compatibility, such feature is the effect mostly of the restrictive policies that Microsoft has always applied in compliance with hardware manufacturers. The high compatibility level Windows always boasts of becomes the result of a POISONING THE WELL fallacy in the sense that other systems were not given the chance by manufacturers to prove their worth and were dismissed a priori. If hardware manufacturers indeed created drivers for all systems, Windows would not be any more compatible than other systems. Linux here actually does a good job because it tries to recognize as many devices as possible and runs devices even if their correspondent drivers are not installed

Why am I saying this? Simply because I took a poll about MEPIS Linux and realized that most of the respondents who use now MEPIS were, like I was, dissatisfied Windows users (39.32%). The total number of respondents to that poll is so far 1493, which is too little to draw global conclusions about Windows. However, Windows users should take into account that of 1493 people who are now using MEPIS Linux (a Linux distro not very famous,) 587 were not satisfied with Windows. That should call for a view of Windows with a more critical eye, even if you are one of the users who are totally satisfied with it. Let your satisfaction be the result of the system's performance and not of fallacious reasoning. Also, a bit of critical thinking is healthy and does not hurt.

On the other hand, dissatisfied Mac users were the fewest in the poll with a 0.27%. Another figure that called my attention was a 30.68% of users who are satisfied with their current distros, but out of curiosity tried MEPIS while a 26.26% did it because they were not satisfied with their distro. I will refer to that later.

jueves, 10 de junio de 2010

As a GNU/Linux user, I am always confronted with the same old question..."Why do you use Linux? Isn't Windows--or MacOS better?"

I am not a hardcore Linux fan, a communist, or a computer guru. I am a plain, normal computer user whose first experience with those amazing and tantrum-prone machines was tied to Microsoft from the very beginning. Long, long time ago, when the dinosaurs were as tiny as insects, the young Megatotoro (yes! there actually was a time in which I was young!) took a course in which he learned DOS and BASIC. I guess today's kids don't have a clue about those names, but MS-DOS was what put Microsoft where it is today. Too bad Microsoft dropped DOS when it launched Windows XP...that made my old games fade away, but that's another story.

My second experience, many years later, was also with a Microsoft product. I needed to type an essay for my major and a very gentle secretary lent me her computer. She gave me a complete Windows 3.11 and MS Word course (a true All-in-One!!) Well, not quite. It was more like "This button is for copying, this for pasting, and this for cutting. You save your document this way and you open it this other way".

That 1-minute-intensive course was all what my formal computer training amounts to be. Had Microsoft Windows been hard to understand, I guess I wouldn't be able to do what I can do now. (I've gone quite a long way beyond copying and pasting!)

So...if Microsoft and Windows saw my first steps in the complex world of computers, why was I so ungrateful to abandon them and to embrace the "communist," rebellious, GNU/Linux movement?

I am an educator, and as such, part of my duty is to teach my students to write effectively. A person cannot write effectively if he or she lacks a critical vision of the world. Today's world is full of paradigms that the ones in power impose on those who they oppress. Paulo Freire was well aware of that when he proposed his Pedagogy of the Oppressed. He argued that effective education must do away with those models of oppression in the search of freedom through a critical reading of the world.

Well, in the field of computers, I realized there was a reality that was being carefully disguised so that nobody could see it. It happened first with Windows XP and DOS. Microsoft dropped DOS to favor Windows NT as its base system. According to Microsoft, that move was made for the sake of stability for Windows NT proved far more stable than DOS.

That was true. Windows XP has been one of the most stable Windows systems ever. However, Microsoft pushed its users to a migration from whatever old system to XP without giving any possible room for choice. Many programs did not run on XP either, but Microsoft did not care about that. It was more a policy of "let's bring in the new and do away with the old" (if "the old" was still very usable and necessary for some, it was out of the question.)

I reluctantly migrated to XP because I really loved Windows ME. Why, yes, there are a few John Smiths who loved Windows Mistake Edition (as many called it)! I accepted the change as part of a natural selection process.

Then, Windows launched its Office 2007 version. I tried it, but didn't like it so much. I was hurt because they killed the cat (the office assistant), but that is beside the point. What really made me mad was the file format change. Microsoft's Office 2007 would use *OOOx (docx, pptx, xlsx). The new format was implemented without any consideration to the public. They argued that it all was for the benefit of the user: it made files smaller, safer, and more private. If they really cared so much for the user, why was it that these new files were not compatible with the old Office platform? Very subtly, they were telling the user "buy the new product". However, the change of extension was not smooth: many individuals and companies did not buy the new suite and that caused a total file chaos: "I cannot open the file you just sent" became a common statement and it still is an issue today. I am particularly enraged by the fact that some people just send their files without ever stopping to think that the receiver may be unable to open them. Is it hard to press one more button and choose the "compatibility mode" to prevent that? Aha! Many windows users use the software mindlessly. As human beings, disconnecting our minds to perform whatever action becomes dangerous.

Back to the incompatibility issue, Microsoft had to create patches and users were required to download them and install them. Again, if the end user was all what Microsoft kept caring about from the beginning, why weren't the patches ready from the start?

That opened my eyes, but there was more to come. The issue of incompatibility repeated itself with Windows Vista! That was just too much for me. The "natural selection" process I had accepted with XP was not natural; it was a very carefully disguised artificial creation. I understand that a company may be reluctant to interact with its competitors, but being incompatible with itself is outrageous! The users were just a flock that was being directed what to buy, how to act, and how to think (if thinking was allowed). My ethics as an educator was not compatible with this paradigm. I refused to stay in the flock and I refused to reproduce that paradigm of silent acceptance.

As human beings, we deserve some respect. Big companies do not treat us as human beings, but as flocks to be exploited and killed when we are no longer usable. I cannot go along with that. Windows, MacOs, Linux or whatever must be an issue of personal choice and not of imposition, either subtle or direct. Many people argue that Windows is better but how many of them have actually used another system? I don't mean watching it or testing it for a couple of times. I mean actually using another system for working or leisure during an extended period of time. I agree that Windows is simple, but is "simple" always a synonym of "better"?

Simplicity leads to dullness of the mind. That is exactly what educators and responsible students must beware of. Whoever stays in the realm of conformism because "it is better than complicating one's life going the extra mile" should think a bit more critically. That conformist attitude is the very killer of human reasoning and becomes the rope that oppressors prefer to keep their flocks from "going astray."

Now, how can people try anything different if it is practically impossible to find a computer without Windows pre-installed? Is that freedom? Is that software imposition a way to treat users with respect? That is saying "We know that you want Windows and nothing else, so here it comes with your computer." What about those who do not want it or who would like to test something different? They have to buy Windows anyway. That's a truly democratic behavior: forcing us to buy and now with no chances for a refund! That resembles a totalitarian regime!

I'm neither for communism nor for ravaging capitalism. Capitalists bash communist countries because of their "lack of individual freedom." Well, I see no difference in being denied your freedom and in making you think you are free when you are not. That is what big companies do to us and I do not want to be part of the system teaching that to my students.